3 ms·

Sure, my wife would mostly agree with you, I don't totally disagree either but try and see the context in why it has become widely used I am going to give you w

Sure, my wife would mostly agree with you, I don't totally disagree either but try and see the context in why it has become widely used I am going to give you with a quote from Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb - “Never listen to a leftist who does not give away his fortune or does not live the exact lifestyle he wants others to follow. What the French call “the caviar left,” la gauche caviar, or what Anglo-Saxons call champagne socialists, are people who advocate socialism, sometimes even communism, or some political system with sumptuary limitations, while overtly leading a lavish lifestyle, often financed by inheritance—not realizing the contradiction that they want others to avoid just such a lifestyle. It is not too different from the womanizing popes, such as John XII, or the Borgias. The contradiction can exceed the ludicrous as with French president François Mitterrand of France who, coming in on a socialist platform, emulated the pomp of French monarchs. Even more ironic, his traditional archenemy, the conservative General de Gaulle, led a life of old-style austerity and had his wife sew his socks.”

socialcooling 9y ago
That's pretty asinine too. You're not allowed to advocate a different life than the one you're leading? It's like the people saying you can't promote a greener environment if you still own a car. It's just another way of shutting them up by creating ridiculous moral standards and acting like you've 'caught them' at an inconsistency. Life is full of inconsistencies. It's also too simple to equate advocating wealth redistribution with needing to give away your money. Giving away your fortune is probably not the best angle for wealth redistribution. Certain rules of fairness for the wealth redistribution may be needed. For example, it may be useful to fight for rules that get all relatively rich people to join in (aka taxes), which will create a much more powerful push for equality.
- peter_retief 9y ago
  Yes, there are people who use their wealth and influence responsibly for the betterment of others, this is the opposite of "trading in virtue"
matt4077 9y ago
It's a perfectly coherent political position to advocate for higher taxes, including oneself, without being willing to unilaterally give away money. In fact that's the basis of all taxation. And there are many on left, including lots with money, who are advocating for higher taxes for themselves, Warren Buffet being the obvious example.

socialcooling 9y ago

That's pretty asinine too. You're not allowed to advocate a different life than the one you're leading? It's like the people saying you can't promote a greener environment if you still own a car. It's just another way of shutting them up by creating ridiculous moral standards and acting like you've 'caught them' at an inconsistency. Life is full of inconsistencies. It's also too simple to equate advocating wealth redistribution with needing to give away your money. Giving away your fortune is probably not the best angle for wealth redistribution. Certain rules of fairness for the wealth redistribution may be needed. For example, it may be useful to fight for rules that get all relatively rich people to join in (aka taxes), which will create a much more powerful push for equality.

peter_retief 9y ago
Yes, there are people who use their wealth and influence responsibly for the betterment of others, this is the opposite of "trading in virtue"

matt4077 9y ago

It's a perfectly coherent political position to advocate for higher taxes, including oneself, without being willing to unilaterally give away money. In fact that's the basis of all taxation. And there are many on left, including lots with money, who are advocating for higher taxes for themselves, Warren Buffet being the obvious example.